Where is Truth? – Dialectic Two Step

There are various eyes and as a result there are various truths, and as a result there is no truth. – Friedrich Nietzsche

I have trouble with Truth with a capital T. It’s the view that there is an objective correct answer to a question. It is, at best, a human hypothesis. If all the caveats that make it tolerable — i.e. “we can probably never know the truth” are required, then what benefit does it carry in our vocabulary? What does it offer except a burning concern that we may be completely wrong about everything?

Here’s the question I’d ask to get at the bottom of this: If it’s just an unprovable hypothesis then why do humans need to appeal to it?

My answer is that its value is in a worldview that requires it for consistency.

Platonic philosophy and Christian theology (brought together by Aquinas) postulate a worldview in which Truth exists. Since worldviews offer individuals immense benefit, then there appears to be good reason to tolerate the concept.

My opinion (from inside of my world view) is that something that takes the form of an answer to a question cannot be Truth. So I don’t need Truth, and thus I don’t see its benefit.